Comment by p-e-w
17 hours ago
I think at this point it’s rather obvious that Anthropic leadership considers the company to be something akin to a nation-state that ought to have quasi-sovereign authority that is not granted to other parties.
17 hours ago
I think at this point it’s rather obvious that Anthropic leadership considers the company to be something akin to a nation-state that ought to have quasi-sovereign authority that is not granted to other parties.
Indeed, it's a sort of Academic Supremacy – "we're smart so we get to control the world". I think SV tech has had an aspect of this for a long time, but Anthropic do seem to be the clearest version of it in a while. Until regulation catches up.
Should they not safeguard these models then?
I think OpenAI and Anthropic have been asking for a sane regulatory framework for some time, so they aren't the ones calling the shots for humanity. It's just not happening in this administration.
I don't mind taking a hard line on safety (this is even good!), and I don't mind controlled testing without model safety to experiment with safety systems or harden things.
The bit I don't like is taking a hard moral stance on what you are allowed to do with the models, while simultaneously taking the guardrails off themselves and then marketing the results of that. "Look how good our model is when it does things we don't let you do" is a pretty bad marketing line.
And this is all in the face of Anthropic stating that they think this is an existential issue for the human race. It's a bad look.
3 replies →